The technically eighth entry in the popular horror series features the return of leading protagonists Leon S. Kennedy and Chris Redfield, along with new character Jake Muller, to combat against the latest B.O.W. manufacturer Neo-Umbrella.

A critical analysis of the Resident Evil 6 Review!

EDIT: Changed the title of the blog because the title is getting more attention then the actual content of the blog. People like to point out that apparently I'm being more critical towards the reviews of RE6, as opposed to the entirety of the review system.

I'll preface this by saying that the following post is in no way intended to insult or degrade the Giant Bomb staff's reviews, or the individual opinions held by the staff in the reviews that will be cited. I highly respect Brad, Ryan, Vinny, Patrick, Alex and Jeff and this is more a discussion that I feel I need to have, partially straighten out my own thoughts on the topic of game reviews. Also, in case it isn't evident within the very next paragraph, I also defend Resident Evil 6 to a certain extent as I am enjoying my experience with it, and it is the thing that sparked the following train of thought.

I generally tend to agree with Brad's reviews. He ends up reviewing a lot of games that I really enjoy, and we've even played online with each other once in a while. That said, considering not just his review, but those of the greater internet at large, my brain is boggled at this hate. I just absolutely do not get it whatsoever. Granted I'm only on chapter 5 of Leon's campaign, [EDIT: Finished all four campaigns, and my opinions of all the things I mention below still hold true.] and it could take a huge nosedive in quality, but as it stands now, it's one of the most exhilarating games I've played so far this year.

The intro is fantastic, the puzzle solving bits at the cathedral are reminiscent of past Resident Evil games and generally the level design is top notch. Playing through the plane level, only to land a crashing plane, and then proceed to fighting the Nemesis like creature while emptying all my clips into it, was one of the most tense and thrilling moments I've experience this year. Sure you can say that a vast majority of the plane landing sequence was relegated to quick time events, but then again, almost every game does this. That doesn't nescarilly excuse that, but to pan this game as being such a horrible offender of this is strange. I can name at least 5 current games that do this exact thing that were reviewed favorably in recent past.

I suck. You know it, I know it.

So the aforementioned are some of the things that I enjoyed, but how about we address some of the complaints? Are they valid points in my eyes? I increasingly seem to agree with Jeff that the current review system is flawed. I can't exactly pinpoint the issues, aside from the fact that when you have such a limited score based system, people can't help but draw comparisons to other games and say well this game got two stars and it was broken, so how is it that this amazing game also got two stars, or why is this a 95 when this other game is a 95.3. It's sort of a broken system where being too granular is stupid and being to general is exactly that, too general. For example the horrible Blackwater game reviewed by Alex got 1 star, while Resident Evil got 2 stars. Does that mean that Resident Evil is only marginally better then Blackwater? I maintain that that cannot be true in any universe. By saying this, I'm not comparing review scores. I'm pointing out that this is a consequence and failing of any current review system that relies on grading the game somehow. People will inevitably compare one game to another when both share some arbitrary number or symbol, in this case stars. However this is not a discussion that I have the solution too, as there are better men then I trying to solve it.

I can't be as bad as him right?

So then I'm going to move over to more specifics. Brad cites difficulties with the controls being unwieldy, however in my experience (and I realize that this me stating my opinion over his), they are better in absolutely every respect to Resident Evil 5. They maintain that sort of accuracy when shooting that RE5 had, but have evolved to allow far better mobility in action scenes. You may say, well RE5 came out x number of years ago, so if there hadn't been improvement that would have mad, and I agree with you. But there was improvement. Any difficulty coming from controlling the game, I think stems from peoples inability to use the tools provided to the player, namely the quick shot and the prone dive. I suspect that Brad hardly used either of these because when Jeff mentioned diving out of the way of leaping enemies in the quick look, Brad sounded befuddled that that was even a possibility.

A common complaint I heard against this game was the lack of instructions. Patrick stated in the RE6 quick look that he wasn't even aware that if you use a first aid spray near your partner, it heals both of you. This was a very basic rule that was established in prior entries and Resident Evil games have adhered to for the past couple of both non main entries, as well as RE5. So the game could be at fault for failing to tutorialize it to you, but when it has been a recurring gameplay element for the past couple of games, I don't think it's completely fair to fault the game. On a certain level, I guess the developer hopes you have picked up on this, and seeing as how Brad had almost S ranked RE5, I'm surprised he has done such a 180 on Resident Evil 6.

The next part of my discussion relies on you having seen the debate posted about Resident Evil 6 on Gametrailers between Marcus and Shane, posted below for your convenience:

In the video Marcus states that it is fine for this game be more action oriented, but that it shouldn't be called Resident Evil 6, but rather Resident Evil Stars of some side story. While I agree that by naming it Resident Evil 6 you set up certain expectations, I completely disagree that a main series entry in the game cannot evolve. Resident Evil is still a survival horror game, but perhaps the focus has shifted to be a bit more of an action thriller and I think that that is a perfectly valid step for it to go in. Does it have to be beholden to previous games, simply because it is called Resident Evil 6? It may not be what you wanted out of a new Resident Evil, but does that make it inherently bad?

Shane says that there has to be some consistency in reviewing, and that if you truly hate something like QTE's and that is one of the things that caused you to dislike Resident Evil 6, then that should be apparent in your future reviews. All games need to be docked, instead of the random pile on that Resident Evil seems to be enduring. I agree with this sentiment. I guess it just confuses me that Brad loved Resident Evil 5, but half of his complaints for RE6 were things that were present in that game as well. I would argue that the two games play identically and have very similar pacing and level structure. So the complete 180 baffles. me. Does this game deserve a 2? Who knows, and who cares? If you are enjoying the game that should be enough. It does make for an interesting debate on the role of games journalism and reviews however, and this case really helps accentuate the flaws of the game review and Metacritic systems.

EDIT: Changed the title of the blog because the title is getting more attention then the actual content of the blog. People like to point out that apparently I'm being more critical towards the reviews of RE6, as opposed to the entirety of the review system.

I'll preface this by saying that the following post is in no way intended to insult or degrade the Giant Bomb staff's reviews, or the individual opinions held by the staff in the reviews that will be cited. I highly respect Brad, Ryan, Vinny, Patrick, Alex and Jeff and this is more a discussion that I feel I need to have, partially straighten out my own thoughts on the topic of game reviews. Also, in case it isn't evident within the very next paragraph, I also defend Resident Evil 6 to a certain extent as I am enjoying my experience with it, and it is the thing that sparked the following train of thought.

I generally tend to agree with Brad's reviews. He ends up reviewing a lot of games that I really enjoy, and we've even played online with each other once in a while. That said, considering not just his review, but those of the greater internet at large, my brain is boggled at this hate. I just absolutely do not get it whatsoever. Granted I'm only on chapter 5 of Leon's campaign, [EDIT: Finished all four campaigns, and my opinions of all the things I mention below still hold true.] and it could take a huge nosedive in quality, but as it stands now, it's one of the most exhilarating games I've played so far this year.

The intro is fantastic, the puzzle solving bits at the cathedral are reminiscent of past Resident Evil games and generally the level design is top notch. Playing through the plane level, only to land a crashing plane, and then proceed to fighting the Nemesis like creature while emptying all my clips into it, was one of the most tense and thrilling moments I've experience this year. Sure you can say that a vast majority of the plane landing sequence was relegated to quick time events, but then again, almost every game does this. That doesn't nescarilly excuse that, but to pan this game as being such a horrible offender of this is strange. I can name at least 5 current games that do this exact thing that were reviewed favorably in recent past.

I suck. You know it, I know it.

So the aforementioned are some of the things that I enjoyed, but how about we address some of the complaints? Are they valid points in my eyes? I increasingly seem to agree with Jeff that the current review system is flawed. I can't exactly pinpoint the issues, aside from the fact that when you have such a limited score based system, people can't help but draw comparisons to other games and say well this game got two stars and it was broken, so how is it that this amazing game also got two stars, or why is this a 95 when this other game is a 95.3. It's sort of a broken system where being too granular is stupid and being to general is exactly that, too general. For example the horrible Blackwater game reviewed by Alex got 1 star, while Resident Evil got 2 stars. Does that mean that Resident Evil is only marginally better then Blackwater? I maintain that that cannot be true in any universe. By saying this, I'm not comparing review scores. I'm pointing out that this is a consequence and failing of any current review system that relies on grading the game somehow. People will inevitably compare one game to another when both share some arbitrary number or symbol, in this case stars. However this is not a discussion that I have the solution too, as there are better men then I trying to solve it.

I can't be as bad as him right?

So then I'm going to move over to more specifics. Brad cites difficulties with the controls being unwieldy, however in my experience (and I realize that this me stating my opinion over his), they are better in absolutely every respect to Resident Evil 5. They maintain that sort of accuracy when shooting that RE5 had, but have evolved to allow far better mobility in action scenes. You may say, well RE5 came out x number of years ago, so if there hadn't been improvement that would have mad, and I agree with you. But there was improvement. Any difficulty coming from controlling the game, I think stems from peoples inability to use the tools provided to the player, namely the quick shot and the prone dive. I suspect that Brad hardly used either of these because when Jeff mentioned diving out of the way of leaping enemies in the quick look, Brad sounded befuddled that that was even a possibility.

A common complaint I heard against this game was the lack of instructions. Patrick stated in the RE6 quick look that he wasn't even aware that if you use a first aid spray near your partner, it heals both of you. This was a very basic rule that was established in prior entries and Resident Evil games have adhered to for the past couple of both non main entries, as well as RE5. So the game could be at fault for failing to tutorialize it to you, but when it has been a recurring gameplay element for the past couple of games, I don't think it's completely fair to fault the game. On a certain level, I guess the developer hopes you have picked up on this, and seeing as how Brad had almost S ranked RE5, I'm surprised he has done such a 180 on Resident Evil 6.

The next part of my discussion relies on you having seen the debate posted about Resident Evil 6 on Gametrailers between Marcus and Shane, posted below for your convenience:

In the video Marcus states that it is fine for this game be more action oriented, but that it shouldn't be called Resident Evil 6, but rather Resident Evil Stars of some side story. While I agree that by naming it Resident Evil 6 you set up certain expectations, I completely disagree that a main series entry in the game cannot evolve. Resident Evil is still a survival horror game, but perhaps the focus has shifted to be a bit more of an action thriller and I think that that is a perfectly valid step for it to go in. Does it have to be beholden to previous games, simply because it is called Resident Evil 6? It may not be what you wanted out of a new Resident Evil, but does that make it inherently bad?

Shane says that there has to be some consistency in reviewing, and that if you truly hate something like QTE's and that is one of the things that caused you to dislike Resident Evil 6, then that should be apparent in your future reviews. All games need to be docked, instead of the random pile on that Resident Evil seems to be enduring. I agree with this sentiment. I guess it just confuses me that Brad loved Resident Evil 5, but half of his complaints for RE6 were things that were present in that game as well. I would argue that the two games play identically and have very similar pacing and level structure. So the complete 180 baffles. me. Does this game deserve a 2? Who knows, and who cares? If you are enjoying the game that should be enough. It does make for an interesting debate on the role of games journalism and reviews however, and this case really helps accentuate the flaws of the game review and Metacritic systems.

This reads more like a refutation of some RE6 reviews you disagree with than an analysis of the "review system" used to write them.

It's a combination of both. I'm using RE6 as the driving force of my argument because it is the most relevant at the moment. Maybe I'll edit it in that I have a liking of Resident Evil 6, in case that isn't obvious.

People need to stop a saying a game is good/bad when they haven't even played a third of it.

If this is directed at me, then I stated that I am enjoying it, not that it is good or bad. I also mentioned that I have left room for the potential that it will take a huge nosedive in quality at any moment.

I agree. I just finished Leon's campaign and I think the game is great. However, the default shooting settings suck and the game never tells you that you can go into the settings and change them to make them like RE4/RE5. I agree that for as much as Brad loved RE5, I don't see how he can hate this new one. It is better in every way, shape, and form.

People need to stop a saying a game is good/bad when they haven't even played a third of it.

If this is directed at me, then I stated that I am enjoying it, not that it is good or bad. I also mentioned that I have left room for the potential that it will take a huge nosedive in quality at any moment.

People need to stop a saying a game is good/bad when they haven't even played a third of it.

Agreed, nothing against you @LiquidPrince but finish the game first. I enjoyed your write up but when you haven't even played 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire campaign, it is harder to take what you are saying seriously.

EDIT: It is also hard to argue against how Giant Bomb does a review, it is THEIR opinion on a game, they don't grade graphics, sounds, etc resulting in a lot of higher scores, IGN I'm looking right at you. That's where I find a problem with most review systems, they are to mechanical and have no emotion. Brad clearly didn't enjoy the game resulting in a lower score. Lets say Vinny loves the game, reviewed it, and gave it a 5 (doubt it) people would be complaining he gave it too high of a score. Really a way to fix the review system is get rid of scores in general and read the fuckin things, like Jeff has said in the past, too much emphasis is put on the score and not on the right up.

There is no problem with the review system because Resident Evil 6 is only one star better than Blackwater. They are two different games, reviewed by two different people. Should Brad have thought to himself "I don't like Resident Evil 6 and want to give it two stars...but since Blackwater has only one less than that I'll have to give it three stars." No, that would be absurd and disingenuous.

The parts of your post where you disagree with specific points in his review are certainly valid, but focusing too much on the score is silly. It's an arbitrary number.

@LiquidPrince: It's nice that you're enjoying what you are playing, but this is hardly any kind of critical analysis of modern reviews. I don't see any real, substantive reasoning given for problems with modern reviews outside of you simply disagreeing with these specific reviews. Maybe you're going to expand on this and make it into an actual critical analysis, but right now this is 98% "I'm enjoying the portion of RE6 I have played and people are wrong to criticize the game as a whole" and 2% critical consideration.

In a way, your post reminds me a bit of Resident Evil 6. Not awful, but also not good. Just seems muddled and disappointing for what it could have been.

Though, fortunately, you still have time to improve on this post and make it about something. RE6 is and will probably remain just a fan service-heavy flash in the pan Michael Bay movie stretched over thirty hours. For some, that'll be perfectly fine, but for others, they may wish Resident Evil still meant something more.

GB's review system is my favorite on the internet. It's clear and simple (Awesome, pretty good, alright, not worth playing, terrible). But comparing one game's reviews to another doesn't always make sense because it's either different people or different thought processes at the time. IGN just went back to a 100 point system for some reason. I don't know what they're thinking as it just leads to the whole "this got an 8.6 but this got an 8.7" thing.

As far as opinions, I disagree with Jeff a lot of the time but understand his arguments in his reviews. He's not wrong, I'm not wrong, we just have different opinions on stuff. That's why I look at plenty of reviews to get a different spread, but I'll still preorder a lot of games that just seem relevant to my interests.

@LiquidPrince: heh. If you just want to say you don't like review scores and Metacritic is awful for the industry, you don't really need a comprehensive writeup for that. You're preaching to the choir. Simply say that, and you'll probably get two hundred people here agreeing with you. As you probably well know, Giant Bomb isn't exactly the friendliest place toward Metacritic, and the head of Giant Bomb is one of the biggest critics of modern videogame review scoring.

Reviewers' displeasure with RE6 has nothing to do with review scores though. If someone reads the content of those reviews, they'll understand why it got two stars or some other score. Heck, I'd say the stars or number scores on some of these reviews actually give a nicer impression than the content within the reviews. Giant Bomb has time and time again made clear that the reviews are a reflection of the reviewer's individual preferences, and their content continually reinforces a better understanding of the reviewer as an individual. Brad's review would have still been critical of the game whether there was a 2 out of 5 stars attached to it, and you probably would still have some reason for complaint. But that's his opinion on the game based on his history with games. His opinion is never the be-all end-all of opinions, and the more we can reinforce that in the minds of gamers, the better. The issue is less with modern reviews themselves but with public perception of those reviews.

And, remember, the Giant Bomb crew hasn't said no one can or will enjoy RE6. They've specifically stated the understanding that some will indeed enjoy it, as they'll have different personal standards on what the game is and how it works. And that's okay. If you're enjoying the game, then please do continue to enjoy the game. But the fact that your impression of the game is different from many reviews isn't indicative of a problem in modern reviews. It's indicative of you having your own preferences, and that's alright. This won't be the last time you'll feel differently about a game than reviewers did. Let others with different preferences dislike the game, and go enjoy what you will enjoy.

This has nothing to do with an analysis of reviews, it's just anger that critics don't like a game you did. This is the kind of stuff that makes Jeff's eyes pop out of his head on Jar Time.

It has everything to do with an analysis of reviews. You cannot critcize something without citing the games that are driving the argument. Me liking Resident Evil is a byproduct of this argument.

No. The argument is a byproduct of you liking RE6.

The Giant Bomb score system has been laboriously described as to refer to recommendation and to be an encapsulation of the text. Game scores are explicitly NOT IN COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER. I don't know how many times it has to be said. Each score is given based on the amount the reviewer would recommend the game, not some end all be all number that is placed there to measure a game's quality. People who continue to make it that are hopeless.

This has nothing to do with an analysis of reviews, it's just anger that critics don't like a game you did. This is the kind of stuff that makes Jeff's eyes pop out of his head on Jar Time.

It has everything to do with an analysis of reviews. You cannot critcize something without citing the games that are driving the argument. Me liking Resident Evil is a byproduct of this argument.

No. The argument is a byproduct of you liking RE6.

The Giant Bomb score system has been laboriously described as to refer to recommendation and to be an encapsulation of the text. Game scores are explicitly NOT IN COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER. I don't know how many times it has to be said. Each score is given based on the amount the reviewer would recommend the game, not some end all be all number that is placed there to measure a game's quality. People who continue to make it that are hopeless.

And yet even the Giantbomb staff have stated that they are always in the process of reconsidering how the handle reviews because the current system they have is flawed. As for the games are not explicitly comparable, yeah I know that, and stated that... That's why the system is flawed.

This has nothing to do with an analysis of reviews, it's just anger that critics don't like a game you did. This is the kind of stuff that makes Jeff's eyes pop out of his head on Jar Time.

It has everything to do with an analysis of reviews. You cannot critcize something without citing the games that are driving the argument. Me liking Resident Evil is a byproduct of this argument.

No. The argument is a byproduct of you liking RE6.

The Giant Bomb score system has been laboriously described as to refer to recommendation and to be an encapsulation of the text. Game scores are explicitly NOT IN COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER. I don't know how many times it has to be said. Each score is given based on the amount the reviewer would recommend the game, not some end all be all number that is placed there to measure a game's quality. People who continue to make it that are hopeless.

And yet even the Giantbomb staff have stated that they are always in the process of reconsidering how the handle reviews because the current system they have is flawed. As for the games are not explicitly comparable, yeah I know that, and stated that... That's why the system is flawed.

You're moving the goalposts. If you know that you shouldn't be comparing scores between games, why was it the first thing you did exactly that? And the review system being flawed has more to do with content than it does with your ability to take a score and directly compare it to another and go "well obviously this is 1.4 better than that other one". Stop it. The main thing flawed about the review score system is the people who read them use it to pitch this annoying internet fights because their precious game didn't get a higher score than a game they don't like. That's a severe flaw. Stop doing this. This is why everyone wants to throw the entire system out, because they're sick of fits pitched over a score that's only meant to sum up the review.

This has nothing to do with an analysis of reviews, it's just anger that critics don't like a game you did. This is the kind of stuff that makes Jeff's eyes pop out of his head on Jar Time.

It has everything to do with an analysis of reviews. You cannot critcize something without citing the games that are driving the argument. Me liking Resident Evil is a byproduct of this argument.

No. The argument is a byproduct of you liking RE6.

The Giant Bomb score system has been laboriously described as to refer to recommendation and to be an encapsulation of the text. Game scores are explicitly NOT IN COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER. I don't know how many times it has to be said. Each score is given based on the amount the reviewer would recommend the game, not some end all be all number that is placed there to measure a game's quality. People who continue to make it that are hopeless.

And yet even the Giantbomb staff have stated that they are always in the process of reconsidering how the handle reviews because the current system they have is flawed. As for the games are not explicitly comparable, yeah I know that, and stated that... That's why the system is flawed.

You're moving the goalposts. If you know that you shouldn't be comparing scores between games, why was it the first thing you did exactly that? And the review system being flawed has more to do with content than it does with your ability to take a score and directly compare it to another and go "well obviously this is 1.4 better than that other one". Stop it. The main thing flawed about the review score system is the people who read them use it to pitch this annoying internet fights because their precious game didn't get a higher score than a game they don't like. That's a severe flaw. Stop doing this. This is why everyone wants to throw the entire system out, because they're sick of fits pitched over a score that's only meant to sum up the review.

No. A game review should be looked at as a solitary review and not compared to another review as in your Blackwater vs RE6 example.

This

But since you have built your analysis on comparing the both you go into specifics of Brad's review and how you dismiss him as being plain wrong, yet you offer no counter critical analysis of Alex's review or eleborate on how the review system is flawed beyond 'Blackwater is crap and RE6 is good'

And a review is also based on playing the entirety of the game, as you stated that you have yet to do, and you could like the game but you haven't seen everything it has to offer

This has nothing to do with an analysis of reviews, it's just anger that critics don't like a game you did. This is the kind of stuff that makes Jeff's eyes pop out of his head on Jar Time.

It has everything to do with an analysis of reviews. You cannot critcize something without citing the games that are driving the argument. Me liking Resident Evil is a byproduct of this argument.

No. The argument is a byproduct of you liking RE6.

The Giant Bomb score system has been laboriously described as to refer to recommendation and to be an encapsulation of the text. Game scores are explicitly NOT IN COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER. I don't know how many times it has to be said. Each score is given based on the amount the reviewer would recommend the game, not some end all be all number that is placed there to measure a game's quality. People who continue to make it that are hopeless.

And yet even the Giantbomb staff have stated that they are always in the process of reconsidering how the handle reviews because the current system they have is flawed. As for the games are not explicitly comparable, yeah I know that, and stated that... That's why the system is flawed.

You're moving the goalposts. If you know that you shouldn't be comparing scores between games, why was it the first thing you did exactly that? And the review system being flawed has more to do with content than it does with your ability to take a score and directly compare it to another and go "well obviously this is 1.4 better than that other one". Stop it. The main thing flawed about the review score system is the people who read them use it to pitch this annoying internet fights because their precious game didn't get a higher score than a game they don't like. That's a severe flaw. Stop doing this. This is why everyone wants to throw the entire system out, because they're sick of fits pitched over a score that's only meant to sum up the review.

It wasn't what I did. In fact it was the opposite of what I did. Apparently you're not understanding the context in which I wrote that example. The example of comparing RE6 to Blackwater wasn't made to say, "hey why is this game 1 star and this game 2 stars." It was meant to point out that the current system makes it so that people will inevitably do that, even though it shouldn't be the case. This is a very simple concept and you keep twisting my words to somehow try and prove me wrong about something we're essentially agreeing upon. Go back and reread what I said.

- Dialoge goes from really good and immersive to super weird, hammy, borderline "japanse/anime". But then again if you picked Resident Evil for the voice acting, you probably deserve to waste your money.

- Laser sight acting up at long distances within the crosshair. Even the fact that there is both is strange.

- If you're the typer of person that goes through the plot with a big fat magnifying glas at all times, then this game is not for you.

- Cover system is horrendous. I completed all 3 chapters and I'm still not entirely sure how you take cover behind small obstacles that you can also jump over.

- Boss fights can be frustrating when you don't know what to do and you run out of bullets trying to find out.

If you can overlook all these things, then you'll probably see this is an awesomely paced game with extremely many gameplay hours. Sick shit happens constantly, the new character Jake all though fleshed out poorly is extremely awesome. The character animation and facial expressions are top notch and there is tons of fan service. I haven't tried co op yet, but online I can imagine it being super awesome. Mercenaries is back and better than ever.

As in regards to the whole review thing, it's subjective. It all comes down to enjoyment, Brad pointed out a ton of flaws that are apparent to him and most people and it hindered his enjoyment of the game. It might not hinder yours.

Personally I can't say I'm not enjoying Resident Evil 6, but some things are just outright annoying. It could have been great in my eyes.

For me, I think the most bizarre part of the video game review "system", if there even is one, is that how games like Resident Evil 6 can play host to such differences in reviews. (IGN 7.9) (GB 2 Stars) We all have our preferences, sure, but aren't we all playing the same game here? How can some people say "the game controls like shit" and some say "the controls feel fine"? I feel like Jeff is right in saying that the review system is pretty flawed if games can land such a huge difference in scores. Aren't the point of reviews to judge the game based on facts and not on how YOU feel about it?

@LiquidPrince: I agree on pretty much everything you've said. I also think regarding QTE's people are lumping in button prompts with QTE's when you get next to a enemy and its flashing a bit "RT" emblem that isn't a QTE its a button prompt. There is no fail state if you do not press it. You simply won't melee finish off the enemy. The game uses QTE's but I don't think it abuses them any more than the previous entries in the series did. I don't so much care that a large part of people don't like RE6 or that there are some people who aren't behind the decidedly more action direction that its taking. What I can't stand is vitriolic nature of everyone's hate its gone past distaste or even lamenting the series direction and turned into and almost witch hunty like mentality.

I just don't get where people are coming from the writing and game play is largely the same that is was in RE4 and RE5. What has changed over the course since RE4 is the controls becoming ever so more liberating. In RE5 you finally had the ability to strafe which was a neat little addition that added now in RE6 they full on allow you do move and shoot and provided a host of other tools at your disposal. However, your still aiming down laser sights, still smashing crates and picking up treasure still shooting humanoid enemies that turn in to horrible creatures after you blow off appendages. The ebb and flow are still there. That isn't to say the game is perfect because it isn't there are large problems with it flat out not telling you how to do a lot of things. I just found out yesterday that you could do running melee attacks. I had NO idea that was a thing until yesterday. I just think its sad that the hate has just become so loud from a select group of people on the internet that now undecided people aren't even bothering deciding for themselves or at the very least looking to the flip side of people who actually like it. And there are huge RE fans that like this game. But as always it seems like the hate just as with the ME3 stuff earlier in the year is insanely amplified due to the ubiquitous nature of the internet.

I finished Leons campaign and i felt the game was good; granted its not perfect but it defiantly deserved a better score on most reviews. Although I do see a positive outcome resulting on review scores and that is that maybe Capcom might change the formula back to its roots of survival horror again; kinda like Bioware were basically forced to make amends with the ME3 ending.

This just reminded me that a half star system (10 points out of 5 stars) would benefit GB and imo be the best score system possible.

Also Kotaku ditched scores for a 50/50 "play or don't play" system which isn't.... useful at all in my opinion.

Why? Stars are for a quick, at-a-glance overview of what a reviewer thought of a game, nothing more, nothing less. I look at RE6's two stars and say "oh, Brad didn't like this game, but it's not entirely a flaming pile of shit, but it's not very good." If he gave it, say, a 2.5/5, how would that benefit anyone at all? Go to the Help page and read about how Giant Bomb's star system works, it's dead simple.

Unless you're falling into the trap (like OP seems to be) of thinking that reviews are somehow supposed to be perfectly objective or something. This is totally not the case at all!

Granted I'm only on chapter 5 of Leon's campaign, and it could take a huge nosedive in quality, but as it stands now, it's one of the most exhilarating games I've played so far this year.

If that's the case, isn't it a bit early to criticize the review? Also, like others have pointed out, this seems like more of a critique of the review rather than the review system itself. Lastly, one of the things that makes GiantBomb unique is that, while objective, the reviews are always slightly influenced by the reviewer's likes/dislikes, which I think adds a level of personality (and sometimes depth) that other review websites lack. Even so, I doubt that they would let it affect the overall score very much.

Reviews are purely subjective and you have to remember that those reviewing the game do not view the world in the same way as you as their life experiences are totally different. I often disagree with reviews, especially scores, but reading a well written and thought out review, like Brad's for instance, can often help me get a general idea of how I will react to the game based on the elements fleshed out in the review. I think in one of the first Bombcasts or "Arrow Pointing Down Podcasts," in February or March of 2008, Jeff explains their philosophy behind the reviews as just a way to explain how the game works and helping you judge for yourself.